Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: EISA vs. ISA Message-ID: <2638@sixhub.UUCP> Date: 15 Dec 90 04:21:55 GMT References: <51097@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) Distribution: usa Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY Lines: 19 In article jc58+@andrew.cmu.edu (Johnny J. Chin) writes: | MCA inferior to EISA? This is not what I've heard. I thought that MCA allows | for peripheral cards to talk to each other without CPU intervention. I'm not | sure that EISA can do this. Can it? EISA allows another board to be temporary master (or DMA if you like). Even the 15 year old S-100 (IEEE 696) bus allows this, I've got a system sitting here which does it. MCA does it another way, but I don't see it as better. Even the AT bus will do it, although it's not a design feature. I *think* the Adaptek 1542 SCSI controller does this, but I don't have a spec handy. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong... -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me